SURESH Vs. CHIEF CANAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 17.12.2010 (Annexure P-2) whereby appeal filed by respondent No.4-Harnam against the order dated 31.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3-Divisional Canal Officer, has been allowed by the Superintending Canal Officer and the order dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1-Chief Canal Officer whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are to the effect that respondent No.4-Harnam moved application for transfer of 22.79/22.79 acres area from outlet No.RD-19875-L Rampura Minor to outlet No.RD-23980-L Rampura minor of village Jasania, Tehsil and District Sirsa on the ground that his aforesaid area is not being properly irrigated through outlet No.RD-19875-L Rampura Minor due to its far away place from the head of outlet and in fact the area in question is situated near to the head of outlet No.RD-23980-L Rampura Minor and underground pipe watercourse from the lined watercourse upto the land in question is available. The case was got considered by the various authorities. Ultimately, the matter was considered by respondent No.3-Divisional Canal Officer who dismissed the application filed by respondent No.4 vide order dated 31.05.2010 (Annexure P-1). Being dissatisfied, respondent No.4 preferred appeal before respondent No.2- Superintending Canal Officer, who allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 31.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3- Divisional Canal Officer, vide impugned order dated 17.12.2010 (Annexure P-2). Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 17.12.2010, the petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No.1-Chief Canal Officer, who dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-3). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) In pursuance of notice of motion, respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 filed their separate written statements. In their written statement, respondent Nos.1 to 3 averred that the impugned orders have been passed taking in consideration the factum of better irrigation, location of the land, existing position and mandatory provisions of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 29 of 1974 (for short, '1974 Act').